Bug 138395
Summary: | Release notes don't explain package removals | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tethys <sta040> |
Component: | basesystem | Assignee: | Ed Bailey <ed> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Mike McLean <mikem> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 3 | CC: | notting, pb |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2004-11-09 00:39:52 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Tethys
2004-11-08 21:34:30 UTC
It was not possible to produce that information this time around. Now y'see... it's comments like that that will push people towards Debian. It certainly *was* possible to produce that information. After all, each package was removed for a reason, and someone must know what those reasons were. Maybe you have valid reasons for not being able to collate that information, or maybe there are reasons why you chose not to reveal it. But if Fedora is to meet its goals of being a community driven project, you've got to be open about the decisions you've made, and why you've made them. Why do you claim it wasn't possible to provide the information this time around? Because I am the person that has been responsible for the release notes for all of Red Hat's operating systems, I am leaving the company at the end of the month, a replacement for my position has not yet been hired, I'm trying to document as much of what I've done here for the past seven years as possible before my last day, and this was just something that there wasn't time to do. Yeah, it's a crappy answer, but since you asked... Actually, it's not a crappy answer at all... it's perfectly valid. Been there, done that :-) *** Bug 140211 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |